Avid Editor's Insights

Archive for March 11th, 2008

Anti-War Loons Plan to Imprison Recruiters in Pittsburgh

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

Charles from LGF brings more disturbing news. I can not believe people are serious about this. It seems as if the anti war left has totally lost its mind.

Anti-War Loons Plan to Imprison Recruiters in Pittsburgh: “

Next week in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, anti-war lunatics are planning to storm a military recruiting office and imprison the recruiters in a ‘movable cage.’

On Wednesday, March 19, POG will be holding a torch-lit march to a modern day castle of abominations—our local military recruiting station. If the station remains open, we intend to evict it and everything inside of it, occupy the location, and transform it into something useful for the community. We’ll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors.

(Via Little Green Footballs.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

You Might Be An Infidel If…

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

You Might Be An Infidel If…: “

You are not embarassed by a naked woman.


and, btw, the Jews and Americans are using drugs and women as weapons to destroy Islam:



(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Terrorists Rejoice At Obama Victory

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

Terrorists Rejoice At Obama Victory: “From Aaron Klein:

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says terrorists will celebrate if Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is elected, and he is on the mark.

As a journalist and author who has conducted dozens of on-the-record interviews with Muslim terrorists, including with some of the most notorious Palestinian terror leaders, and who has documented many of those interviews in a recently released, 210-page book, ‘Schmoozing with Terrorists,’ I share his belief.

Terrorists worldwide indeed would be emboldened by an Obama election victory not so much because of the senator’s middle name – Hussein – or because of his family background, but because terrorists know many of Obama’s policies would translate into victory for the global jihad movement.

Obama has made clear he favors a swift American withdrawal from Iraq, direct dialogue with Iran – the largest state sponsor of terrorism – and a more ‘evenhanded’ approach toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What do the terrorists think about these policies? Well, I recently asked them:

  • Ramadan Adassi, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades terror group in the West Bank’s Anskar refugee camp, pointed to Obama’s rise to stardom as ‘an important success. He won popularity in spite of the Zionists and the conservatives.’
  • Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained Democrat candidates’ anti-war positions ‘prove that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world.’
  • Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel ‘proud.’
    ‘As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk,’ he told me for my book. ‘Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.’
  • Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, was more direct: the policy of withdrawal, he stated, ‘proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation.’

What about dialogue with America’s enemies, such as sit-downs with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Obama has so fervently advocated?

Muhammad Abdel-Al, spokesman and a senior leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror group, recently explained U.S. willingness to negotiate and initiate dialogue ‘shows the Islamic resistance is bringing the giant [America] to its knees.’

‘It would be a great achievement complimented by more and more dead American soldiers they will carry in coffins to the U.S.,’ said Abdel-Al.

These terrorists are not just spewing rhetoric. Obama’s policies absolutely will further their goal of world domination.

A lot of people think terrorism is about pieces of territory. That Iraqi insurgents just want an American retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan. That Hezbollah simply wants a piece of territory it claims belongs to Lebanon. That Hamas is fighting only to destroy Israel. What most people need to understand is that these are only the various Islamic terrorist group’s short term goals. The singular overall objective of Islamic terrorism anywhere – and terrorists are boastful about this – is to spread their extremist belief system around the world.

Rep. King also indicated terrorists would rejoice if Obama were elected due to the senator’s ties to Islam and his middle name.

‘His middle name is the name of the grandson of Muhammad. It’s used many, many times throughout the Muslim world and it associates itself with the religion and with the heritage and with the struggle and with some of the violence that’s over there as well,’ King clarified in a radio interview. ‘And so it isn’t just one person who was a dictator in Iraq, it’s a thread that goes through the entire Muslim world.’

While many terrorists commented to me they believe one day there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating sharia Islamic laws, I spoke with more than a few terrorists who were nervous about Obama’s middle name. They explained they believe Obama would try to distance himself from Islam and from anti-Israel policies to prove he is not a Muslim. The terrorists instead focused largely on Obama’s policies.

‘The day will come when Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world,’ Hamas’ Gaza leader and former foreign minister Mahmoud al-Zahar announced at a rally last year.

Make no mistake about it, terrorists worldwide believe Obama’s policies will bring this day closer.”

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Fraudulent Scholarship of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

The Fraudulent Scholarship of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer: “

The Fraudulent Scholarship of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer

by Alex Safian, PhD

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Farrar & Straus, Sept. 2007), by professors Stephen Walt of Harvard University and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, charges that the ‘Israel lobby’ has distorted the foreign policy of the United States in favor of Israel to the point of serious damage to U.S. interests, including allegedly making the country a target of Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

While such charges are not new – Pat Buchanan, Paul Findley, Edward Tivnan, David Duke and others have at various times said more or less the same thing – the difference here is the scholarly prestige of the authors. That Walt and Mearsheimer hold named chairs at two of the leading universities in the world lends great weight to their provocative thesis, with predictable results: a veritable flood of attention and a book on the New York Times bestseller list.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is an extended elaboration of a ‘working paper’ with the same title the authors published on the website of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in 2006. In their paper the authors summarize their case as follows (they make essentially the same argument on pages 7 and 8 of the book):

The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby.’ Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.

Perhaps anticipating that these claims might be controversial, the authors attempt to reassure any who might doubt them:

Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars.

Contrary to Walt and Mearsheimer, however, the ‘facts’ they recount are in many cases not facts at all, and therefore are – and ought to be – in serious dispute. A critical example of this are the numerous quotations Walt and Mearsheimer attribute to Israeli leaders to make the argument that there is no moral case for a close relationship with Israel. In other words, that Israel is bad.

Every one of these quotations is false or falsified, violating the basic requirement in scholarly writing that quotations be scrupulously accurate, presented in full context, and if at all possible taken from primary sources. Merely having a footnoted citation for some alleged quotation is not enough, especially in a controversial field where polemical writers may well be distorting the historical record for their own partisan purposes. Indeed, relying on such partisan sources for a fact or quotation is worse than giving no attribution at all, since the footnote that buttresses a false claim is itself a further deception.

While one of the falsified quotations attributed to David Ben Gurion in the paper is partially corrected in the book, the authors also added to the book new falsified quotations attributed to Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan and others. Compounding matters is that Professors Walt and Mearsheimer and their publisher were warned about the faulty quotations in the original paper. All in all, this is therefore a grave violation of scholarly norms for which Walt and Mearsheimer should be held to account.

The falsified quotations

As part of their effort to undermine Israel’s moral standing as an ally of the United States, Walt and Mearsheimer cite its allegedly oppressive and ruthless treatment of Arabs, and offer up as proof seemingly damaging statements by Israeli leaders. Thus they claim that the following statement by Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proved that Israel never really accepted partition of the Palestine Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states, and was always intent on expelling and dispossessing the Palestinians:

After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine. (paper; book, p 93)

Did Ben-Gurion actually say this? Not quite. The above quote is supposedly from a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive, the pre-state representative body of the Jews in the Palestine Mandate, and here’s what Ben-Gurion actually said according to the meeting protocol:

Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.

Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?

Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us… And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state. (from Efraim Karsh, ‘Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ’Transfer’ Idea,’ Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53)

In other words, Ben-Gurion was stating exactly the opposite of what Walt and Mearsheimer would have their readers believe.

In the paper and the book, the authors also ‘quoted’ Ben-Gurion as apparently supporting ‘brutal’ measures to expel Palestinians:

…the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben-Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that ‘it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.’ (book p 95)

But in the paper the authors’ own citation actually undermines their claim. They cite two books for this quote, Expulsion of the Palestinians, by Nur Masalha, and Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris. Now either they never really checked the latter, or they were trying to fool their readers, for this is how Morris actually recounts the quote:

‘Complete transfer without compulsion – and ruthless compulsion, at that – is hardly imaginable.’ Some – Circassians, Druze, Bedouin, Shi’ites, tenant farmers, and landless laborers – could be persuaded to leave. But ‘the majority of the Arabs could hardly be expected to leave voluntarily within the short period of time which can materially affect our problem.’ He concluded that the Jews should not ‘discourage other people, British or American, who favour transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our programme.’ (Righteous Victims, p 169)

In other words, if you take seriously the authors’ own citation, it disproves their allegation. (It should also be noted that, just like Mearsheimer and Walt, Masalha somehow manages to omit that inconvenient part of Ben-Gurion’s statement in which the Israeli leader argues against adopting any policy of transfer.)

How the authors try in the book to rectify this critical error is revealing. A few lines after the cited paragraph they include the rest of the quotation as recounted by Morris, drop any reference to the obviously unreliable Masalha (note 70 on page 385), and assert with no evidence whatsoever that Ben-Gurion really supported expulsion of the Palestinians but was careful not to say so. In academic circles this is known as proof by ‘hand waving’ – that is, no proof at all.

The Israelis as ‘brutal’ theme appears again, as Walt and Mearsheimer inform readers that Israelis advocated and employed:

… brutal methods to remove huge numbers of Palestinians from the land that would soon be the new Jewish state. Consider what Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on January 1, 1948, at a time when he was involved in a series of important meetings with other Zionist leaders about how to deal with the Palestinians in their midst: ‘There is a need now for strong and brutal reaction. We need to be accurate about timing, place and those we hit. If we accuse a family – we need to harm them without mercy, women and children included. Otherwise, this is not an effective reaction … There is no need to distinguish between guilty and not guilty.’ (book, p. 99; emphasis added)

Now, for this quote Walt and Mearsheimer cite one of their favorite authors, the Israeli ‘new historian’ Ilan Pappe, and his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. And indeed Pappe’s book contains this passage, said to be from Ben-Gurion’s diary (though Walt and Mearsheimer omit a few words). But Pappe says that this was Ben-Gurion recounting not his own words but those of (Yigal) Allon, a pre-state Jewish military leader and later a prominent Israeli politician. For some reason Walt and Mearsheimer leave this out, leading readers to assume the author of these words was Ben-Gurion himself.

But there are far larger problems here. First, it seems clear even from the passage cited by Walt and Mearsheimer that what was being discussed was not a plan to ‘remove huge numbers of Palestinians,’ but a proposed ‘reaction’ to Arab attacks, which would target a family if they were involved in those attacks (‘if we accuse a family’). Clearly a program involving mass expulsions would not refer to reactions or accusations against specific people.

Second, Pappe omits a key sentence which completely changes the character of the passage. Here is the actual full translation from the primary source, Ben-Gurion’s diary:

There is no question whether a reaction is necessary or not. The only question is when and where. Blowing up a house is not enough, especially if it’s not the right one. There is a need for a brutal and firm response. We need precision in time, place and casualties. If we definitely know the (culpable) family – hit without mercy, including the women and children of this family who might be there. Otherwise the reaction will not be effective. In the actual place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent. Where there was no attack (ie. the family is innocent), we must not touch. (emphasis added; David Ben-Gurion, Independence War Diary, V1, p 97-98; in Hebrew)

Pappe deceptively omits this sentence, which gives a hint of his own credibility. With it restored the nature of the discussion is clear – retaliation against those who have attacked Israelis. If it is known that the attacker lives in a certain house, attack that house even if there are also innocents inside. But if all inside the house are innocents, then it is forbidden to attack. Admittedly tough sentiments, though in the context of a tough and bloody war in which Israel lost fully one percent of its population.

Third, Pappe is also wrong about whose words were being recounted. While he claimed it was Allon, Ben-Gurion makes clear in the diary that he was recounting the words of one of his advisers on Arab affairs, Gad Machnes. Pappe is evidently no more fastidious with quotes and documents that Walt and Mearsheimer.

But there’s even more to be said on this. After all, Ben-Gurion was recounting in his diary, in telegraphic form, discussions from an extended meeting on critically important subjects. An obvious question for the scholar studying this period would be: Was there a written record of the meeting itself, and if so, what did it say?

Indeed there was a written record of the meeting and it further undermines the Walt/Mearsheimer position. For here is how that protocol records Machnes’ words:

I think that today there is no question whether or not to respond. But for the response to be effective, it must come in the right time and the right place and take the form of a strong punishment. Blowing up a house is not enough. Blowing up a house of innocent people is certainly not enough! The response must be strong and harsh because it must create the [right] impression, must punish [the perpetrators of violence] and must serve as a warning. If our responses are not impressive—they will create the opposite impression. These matters necessitate the utmost precision—in terms of time, place, and whom and what to hit … If we operate against, say, a specific family in a known place, a known village [i.e., identified perpetrators of violence], then there should be no mercy! But only a direct blow and no touching of innocent people! We have already reached a position that necessitates a strong response. Today one should not even avoid hitting women and children. For otherwise, the response cannot be effective. (from Efraim Karsh, ‘Benny Morris and the Reign of Error,’ Middle East Quarterly, March 1999; available at http://www.meforum.org/article/466) (emphasis added)

Obviously, this passage only further undermines the claims of Walt and Mearsheimer that participants at the meeting discussed ‘brutal methods to remove huge numbers of Palestinians.’ Nothing could be further from the truth – neither the diary they claimed to be quoting, nor the actual protocol, says anything of the sort.

Besides the false quotes portraying Israeli leaders as brutal ethnic cleansers, Walt and Mearsheimer also dredge up other supposed quotes (page 89) to argue that Israeli leaders are racists. Thus they charge that former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin called the Palestinians ‘beasts walking on two legs’ and former IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan termed them ‘drugged roaches in a bottle.’

Did Begin say that Palestinians are beasts? The answer is absolutely not. In a June 8, 1982 statement to the Israeli parliament, Begin did use the term ‘two-footed animals,’ but he was referring not to Palestinians but to terrorists who would murder Israeli schoolchildren. Begin’s statement is available online; here is the relevant passage:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of… Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

Obviously there is nothing racist in the least in Begin’s statement, and once again the genuine quote actually undermines the point Walt and Mearsheimer were deceptively trying to make. And what about the Eitan quote? Did he really refer to the Palestinians as roaches? Once again, not quite. For this claim Walt and Mearsheimer cite a New York Times article from 1983, but the relevant passage says something very different:

[Eitan reportedly told] Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that for every incident of stone-throwing by Arab youths, 10 settlements should be built. ‘When we have settled the land,’ he was quoted as saying, ‘all the Arabs will be able to do about it is scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.’ (New York Times, April 14, 1983, p A3)

Now Eitan was never known for his diplomacy, but the expression he used clearly meant that the Palestinians would have no effective response to the policy he proposed. That is no more calling the Palestinians roaches than, for example, it would be calling Walt and Mearsheimer fish to say that deconstructing the claims of Walt and Mearsheimer is like ‘shooting fish in a barrel.’

Thus, for example, it is not hard to deconstruct Walt and Mearsheimer’s use of an alleged statement by the former Israeli Foreign Minister and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. Predictably, they simply accept as true Arab claims that Israel destroyed 531 Palestinian villages, and try to enlist Dayan in support of the charge:

Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan captures the catastrophe that the Jews inflicted on the Palestinians to create the state of Israel: ‘Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because geography books no longer exist, not only the books do not exist, the Arab villages are not there either … There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.’ (book, p 96)

Did Dayan really say this? Again, not quite, since the key sentence that reverses the meaning of the quotation is omitted, both by Walt and Mearsheimer, and by their very partisan source for this quote, Walid Khalidi.

The passage is from an address Dayan gave to Technion students on March 19, 1969 (the Technion is more or less Israel’s MIT). A transcript of the speech appeared in Ha’aretz on April 4, 1969. In answer to a student’s question suggesting that Israel deport to Jordan Palestinian attackers from the West Bank, Dayan answers that he is vehemently opposed to this idea, insisting that Arabs have roots in the land just like Jews, and that the two peoples must learn to live together. He goes on to say:

We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don’t even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don’t blame you, because those geography books aren’t around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren’t around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn’t any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement. (emphasis added)

Dayan’s larger point that the two peoples must learn to coexist in itself contradicts the picture painted by Walt and Mearsheimer of ruthless Israelis dispossessing and oppressing Arabs. But the key is the sentence in bold above, which was curiously omitted by Khalidi and therefore missed by the credulous Walt and Mearsheimer: ‘In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.’ Thus, once again, far from supporting the point Walt and Mearsheimer were trying to make, the quote, when rendered accurately, actually undermines it.

However Walt and Mearsheimer ‘researched’ these ‘quotations,’ it is clear that as a rule they choose to believe any allegations of Israeli wrongdoing and cruelty. In this they are no better than the proverbial bad journalist who says that a certain story was ‘too good to check.’

But Walt and Mearsheimer would be insulted to be called journalists. They are renowned professors, and their book on the ‘Israel Lobby’ receives attention and credibility – and got a more than $700,000 book advance – because of their academic credentials and supposedly rigorous scholarship. But the record shows that their scholarship is laughably inadequate. Indeed, Walt and Mearsheimer seem no more reliable than some of the more hate-filled anti-Israel websites that are an affliction on the internet.

As academics Professors Walt and Mearsheimer operate under a very clear code – errors are supposed to be corrected forthrightly and promptly. Not to do so – and therefore to knowingly perpetuate falsehoods – is clear academic misconduct. So will Walt and Mearsheimer publicly admit their errors and offer readers an apology? Since they thought these ‘quotes’ important enough to warrant an entire chapter in their book, now that the quotes have been refuted, will they publicly drop their charges denying a moral case for Israel? And will they instruct their publisher, Farrar, Straus, to include an errata sheet in all copies of the book? Finally, will they correct the working paper that is still posted on Harvard’s Kennedy School web site?

Professor Mearsheimer repeatedly uses the word ‘scholar’ to defend his work, as in asserting that his claims are commonplace among scholars, and disputed only by pro-Israel partisans. The question now is will Mearsheimer and Walt act like scholars or partisans?

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

If They Don’t Fool You They Can’t Defeat You

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

If They Don’t Fool You They Can’t Defeat You: “

By Barry Rubin

Radical forces in the Middle East have rewritten the international rulebook in a way designed so ‘they can’t lose.’ That is, there’s no easy response to their behavior and strategies.

What’s even more worrisome is the widespread failure in the West even to realize this is happening. Hamas and Hizballah fire from among civilians and use civilian homes for military purposes; Syria or Iran deploy disinformation, radical regimes pretend moderation, and there are plenty of suckers to take the bait.

Extremism makes many believe that kind words and concessions can transform them; intransigence produces a response that if they won’t give up we must do so.

Here are some new rules in which ‘we’ represents such disparate forces as Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaida, Syria, the Taliban, and others including radical Arab nationalists. These forces are not all alike or allied but do often follow a parallel set of rules quite different from how international affairs have generally been conducted.

  1. We’ll never give up. No matter what you do, we will continue fighting. No matter what you offer we will keep attacking you. Since you can’t win you should give up.
  2. We’re indifferent to pressure you put on us. We will turn this pressure against you. Against us, deterrence does not exist; diplomacy does not convince. Neither does the carrot buy us off, nor does the stick make us yield. There are no solutions that can end the conflict. You cannot win militarily nor make peace through diplomacy.
  3. If you set economic sanctions we’ll say you are starving our people in an act of ‘collective punishment.’ Moreover, sanctions will cost you money and generate opposition among those who lose profits.
  4. In response to military operations we’ll attack your civilians. Casualties will undermine your internal support. We will try to force you to kill civilians accidentally. We won’t care but will use this to persuade many that you are evil. Thus, we will simultaneously murder your civilians and get you condemned as human rights’ violators.
  5. If you try to isolate us we will use your own media and intellectuals against you. At times, we’ll hint at moderation and make promises of change. We won’t do so enough to alienate our own followers but enough to subvert yours. They will demand you engage us, which means you making concessions for nothing real in exchange.
  6. Talking to our own people, we foment hatred and demonize you. Speaking to the West, we will accuse you of fomenting hatred. We will hypocritically turn against you all the concepts you developed: racism, imperialism, failure to understand the ‘other,’ and so on. These, of course, are our ideas but your feelings of guilt, ignorance about us, and indifference to ideology will make you not notice that fact.
  7. We will claim to be victims and ‘underdogs.’ Because you are the stronger and more ‘advanced’ that means you are the villains. We’re not held responsible for our deeds or expected to live up to the same standards. There is no shortage of, to quote Lenin, ‘useful idiots’ who will echo our propaganda.
  8. Since our societies are weak, undemocratic, and have few real moderates, you will have to make deals with phoney moderates and dictatorial regimes weakened by corruption and incompetence.
  9. Even the less radical regimes, often our immediate adversaries, partly play into our hands. Due to popular pressure–plus their desire to mobilize support and distract attention from their own shortcomings–they trumpet Arab and Islamic solidarity. They denounce the West, blame all problems on Israel, and revile America, even as they accept your aid. They glorify interpretations of Islam not too far from ours. They cheer Iraqi insurgents, Hizballah, and Hamas. They don’t struggle against Iran getting nuclear weapons. They lay the basis for our mass support and recruits, as Lenin said selling us the rope to hang them as well as you.
  10. There’s no diplomatic solution for you, though you yearn to find one. There’s no military solution for you, whether you try that or not. You love life, we love death; you are divided, we are united; you want to get back to material satisfaction, we are dedicated revolutionaries. We will outlast you.
  11. Finally, our greatest weapon is that you truly don’t understand all the points made above. You are taught, informed, and often led by people who simply don’t comprehend what an alternative, highly ideological, revolutionary worldview means. In effect, we will try, and often succeed, toturn your ‘best and brightest’ into the worst and dimmest who think you can persuade us, blame you for the conflicts, or expect that we will alter our course, and we will use those mistakes against you.

The above analysis seems pessimistic but actually is the opposite. Most of this strategy’s power is based on spreading illusions, depending on gullibility. Much of the rest relies on their enemies’ psychological weaknesses.

In a sustained conflict, the radicals’ technological and organizational weaknesses, along with their mistaken assessments and unrealistic ideology, will bring inevitable defeat. They will lose even if they never surrender.

They can kill people but not overcome societies determined to grow, prosper, and survive. The keys to a successful response are steadfastness and understanding. To paraphrase Francis Bacon and Franklin Roosevelt, there is nothing to fear but fear–and gullibility–itself.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth about Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150 Israel
Email: info AT gloriacenter.org Phone: +972-9-960-2736 Fax: +972-9-960-2736
© 2007 All rights reserved.

pay per click advertising

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Hamas: “Like Hezbollah, We Also Are Iran’s Proxy Warriors Against Israel”

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

I think it is time to take down Iran and it’s proxy armies.

Hamas: “Like Hezbollah, We Also Are Iran’s Proxy Warriors Against Israel”: “


Iran’s days are numbered…as are Hams’ and Hezbollah’s.

The Hamas commander was in a hurry. Hunched forward in a navy-blue parka, with the wind-chapped skin and drawn eyes of someone who had been outdoors all night, he had just returned from the front line with Israel. The whine of drones overhead signalled that his enemy was hunting for blood.

He is in the vanguard of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas which is growing into a disciplined army, trained to fight for victory rather than be consigned to the ‘martyr’s death’ of the suicide bomber.

Israel has long insisted that Iran is behind this training. Last week Yuval Diskin, the head of the Israeli internal security service Shin Bet, said as much when he claimed that Hamas had ‘started to dispatch people to Iran, tens and a promise of hundreds’.
The Hamas commander, however, confirmed for the first time that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been training its men in Tehran for more than two years and is currently honing the skills of 150 fighters.

The details he gave suggested that, if anything, Shin Bet has underestimated the extent of Iran’s influence on Hamas’s increasingly sophisticated tactics and weaponry.

Speaking on the record but withholding his identity as a target of Israeli forces, the commander, who has a sparse moustache and oiled black hair, said Hamas had been sending fighters to Iran for training in both field tactics and weapons technology since Israeli troops pulled out of the Gaza strip of Palestinian territory in 2005. Others go to Syria for more basic training.

‘We have sent seven ‘courses’ of our fighters to Iran,’ he said. ‘During each course, the group receives training that he will use to increase our capacity to fight.’

The most promising members of each group stay longer for an advanced course and return as trainers themselves, he said.

So far, 150 members of Qassam have passed through training in Tehran, where they study for between 45 days and six months at a closed military base under the command of the elite Revolutionary Guard force.

The rest of the article is an obviously biased piece of Hamas propaganda…I had to edit even the shit I put up there. Suffice it to say that Iran has truly stepped up the training of terrorist puke organizations like Hamas, and the escalation over the last few years really just says one thing: They must die very soon.

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

State Department Asks: Should the US ‘Engage’ the Suicide-Bombing, Genocidal Hamas Terrorist Gang?

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

Charles from Little Green Footballs exposes how the state department is siding with terrorist again. The State Department has been aiding our enemies since the beginning of the Cold war. It looks like they are still at it. I hope McCain can clean up the state department.

State Department Asks: Should the US ‘Engage’ the Suicide-Bombing, Genocidal Hamas Terrorist Gang?: “

At their ‘blog,’ the United States State Department is seriously asking the question: Should the U.S. engage Hamas as part of its efforts to bring about peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?

Yes, that’s our State Department. The same State Department that lists Hamas as a terrorist organization, and penalizes US companies for dealing with them, is proposing that the government ‘engage’ Hamas.

Did I already say ‘Aaarrrrggghhh’ once today?

Sample comments from Foggy Bottom readers:

Hey, why bother with the time-wasting ‘engagement’ strategery? Why not just issue a public formal surrender now, to al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and the Iranians and the Saudi Sunni mob?

Sure, right after you’ve given Osama Bin Laden a tour of the Oval Office.

Are you kidding?

It’s absolute insanity to even consider such a proposal.

Would meeting and speaking to the rapist of your daughter help you, your daughter or the rapist?

And my favorite:

U.S. Congressman Mark Kirk in Washington, DC writes:

Worrying that you guys are asking questions like this using funds approved by the appropriations committee that I am a member of.

(Via Little Green Footballs.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Pentagon says Syria, Iran supporting foreign fighters in Iraq

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

We are fighting a global war on Islamic terror. I hope the Pentagon did not just realize this.

Pentagon says Syria, Iran supporting foreign fighters in Iraq: “”

Despite increased counterterrorism efforts by Damascus, as much as 90 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq cross the border from Syria, according to a Pentagon report that says Iran’s support for Shiite militants also is hurting efforts to improve Iraq security.

As those external pressures dog coalition and Iraqi forces, the government of Iraq is also hamstrung by internal corruption and persistent problems getting basic services to the people, the report said.

The Defense Department’s quarterly report on progress in Iraq, released Tuesday, said that militants continue to find safe havens and logistical support in Syria.

“It is not clear that Syria has made a strategic decision to deal with foreign terrorists using Syria as a transit point into Iraq,” said the report, which covers events from December through February.

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Overstepping Union Attacks US Foreign Policy

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

Overstepping Union Attacks US Foreign Policy: “

In the military there is phrase for something that gets larger than it started; mission creep. This phrase is a really good one to describe how things often get out of hand. It also describes why unions always go awry. In this case, mission creep describes what happens when a union goes from being concerned with the interests of employees and union members to imagining it has the power or even the place to try to guide American foreign policy.

The Atlantic Free Press brings us the ridiculous tale of the arrogance of the ILWU that has decided it has the right to shut down all west cost ports of entry so that the union can announce its disagreement with the war in Iraq — a war that we are winning at last, by the way.

In a major step for the U.S. labor movement, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced that it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1, to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East. In a February 22 letter to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, ILWU International president Robert McEllrath reported that at a recent coast-wide union meeting, ‘One of the resolutions adopted by caucus delegates called on longshore workers to stop work during the day shift on May 1, 2008 to express their opposition to the war in Iraq.’

If anyone can show me where a union has the place to take such an action… well, I’m all ears.

But here they are with the arrogance of those who imagine that they smarter and better equipped than those whom we actually ELECT to lead this country!

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Reuters: ‘Death to the Jews’ is ‘Pro-Palestinian’

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

Charles from LGF exposes more of Reuters anti-Israel and anti Semitic bias.

Reuters: ‘Death to the Jews’ is ‘Pro-Palestinian’: “

Graffiti found in an El Al plane in Italy has led the airline to demand an investigation; Reuters reports that it was ‘pro-Palestinian graffiti.’

MILAN, March 11 (Reuters) – Pro-Palestinian graffiti written in Arabic has been found scrawled inside the cargo hold of an El Al plane during unloading at Milan’s Malpensa airport, raising Israeli concerns about Italian airport security.

‘It was something like ‘Long Live Palestine’,’ written with a marker pen, Raffaele Veri of the Malpensa airport police told Reuters on Tuesday. ‘It has happened once before.’

Something like ‘Long live Palestine?’

Sure, I guess you could say that ‘Long live Palestine’ is the equivalent of ‘Death to the Jews.’

Tel Aviv – Despite the Israeli airline’s tight security, unknown vandals spray-painted anti-Semitic slogans inside the cargo bay of an El-Al passenger plane, probably as it was docked in Milan, an Israeli newspaper reported Tuesday. The slogans, in Arabic, included ‘Death to the Jews,’ the Yediot Ahronot daily said.

El-Al staff members discovered them as they were loading luggage onto the plane at Milan’s Malpensa Airport before it was heading back to Tel Aviv.

The perpetrator spray-painted the graffiti in the plane’s cargo bay earlier, probably shortly after it landed in Milan and as luggage was being unloaded.

(Hat tip: RaiderDan.)

(Via Little Green Footballs.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Israel, Hamas and Egypt agree informally to ceasefire and end of Gaza siege

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

I really hope Debtka is wrong. Because if this is how Israel responds to Terrorist killing kids studying torah and send missiles into civilian populations then Israel is in trouble.

Exclusive: Israel, Hamas and Egypt agree informally to ceasefire and end of Gaza siege: “

Despite Israeli and Hamas denials of an accord, DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report that the Egyptian intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman has brokered an informal ceasefire and obtained Israel’s non-rejection of a reopened Rafah crossing from Gaza to Sinai. The calm on the Gaza-Israel border went into its third day Monday, March 11.

Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, when they denied secret talks with Hamas were technically correct. And since no documents were formally negotiated or signed, the arrangement can be repudiated at any time.

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Lieberman: Israel’s new security problems are due to the Gaza Disengagement

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

I hope Israeli politicians follow Lieberman’s clear logic and reasoning

Lieberman: It’s the Disengagement, Stupid: “”

(IsraelNN.com) Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman, formerly the Minister of Strategic Affairs, attacked the government for ignoring the fact that all of Israel’s security troubles today are a direct result of the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza and northern Samaria.

“There is no other explanation,” Lieberman said, “and anyone with an IQ a little above zero understands that the situation is a direct result of the irresponsible adventure called the Disengagement.”

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Outing NYT lies on Obama

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008


Obama scares me. He pretends just not to like Likud but his ties to radical islamic organizations and Jihadi money tell me other wise. Any jew that votes for Obama is voting to destroy the state of Israel and creating a climate in America that will not be safe for jews. Every clear thinking American should fear what he means by change. Not all change is good, but the change the Obama wants will make the world a less safe place for all Americans, especially the Jews.Previous articles I have blogged on Obama are here https://avideditor.wordpress.com/category/obama/

Fisking Nicolas Kristof on Obama’s Bigots: “

It seems to me that Kristof is the one guilty of name calling and labels. ‘Bigot!’ ‘Racist!’ The only leftist meme missing, ‘islamophobe!’ but that might imply Obama is a …. Muslim.I had to fisk Kristof’s column because every sentence was ……. wrong.

Obama and the bigots Nicolas Kristof, NY TimesThe ugliest prejudices in this campaign season are not directly about race.Barack Obama’s skin color may cost him some working-class white voters, but it’salso winning some votes among blacks and among whites eager to signal theiropen-mindedness. 

Deception. No one gives a rat’s ass about Obama’s colour except those that are voting for himKristof190because he is black (an inverted racism)  evidence enough that  this is not a race issue. Kristof  ignores that omnipresent fact that Islam declared on this country on 9/11/01 (or as far back as 1979) so any rational, reasoned man  we would be concerned if a President had sympathies and loyalties to an enemy that vowed to destroy America and made good on that threat by planning daily operations and carrying out daily , weekly, monthly attacks on our allies and free peoples everywhere to advance their nefarious goals.

Sexism seems more of a factor. Americans have typically said in polls thatthey are less willing to vote for a woman than a black, and Shirley Chisholm (ablack woman who ran for president in 1972) always said that she encountered moreprejudice because of her sex than her race. 

It’s a she thing? Nah, if Thatcher were running, we’d all vote for her. Its the content, not the genitalia.

Yet the most monstrous bigotry in this election isn’t about either race orsex. It’s about religion.The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim planning toimpose Islamic law on the country. Incredibly, he is even accused — in earnest!— of being the Antichrist. 

First off, no one is whispering. We are not ashamed. Kristof and his lily-livered colleagues whisper, tiptoe around Islam. Did they print the Danish cartoons? Did they take up the cause of free speech against Islamic censorship parading as ‘blasphemey’? Did they take up the oppression of women in Islam? Never against Islam. We, OTOH,  are stating, asserting the disturbing facts quite plainly and they are hard to ignore (though main stream media does nothing but ignore it).Secondly, no one thinks he’s the Anti-Christ. It’s the unnerving fervor and reverence, blind faith on behalf of the obamaniacs that generates a knee jerk play on the Anti-Christ moniker. Ive called him that as a poke, but not seriously.  On the other hand,  many Obama cultists believe he is the messiah. Hence, the Anti-Christ rubric.

Proponents of this theory offer detailed theological explanations for why heis the Antichrist, and the proof is that he claims to be Christian — after all, the Antichrist would say that, wouldn’t he? Therumors circulate enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, aconservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is theAntichrist. 

This is nonsense. Kristof  knows it.

These charges are fanatical, America’s own equivalent of the viciousaccusations about Jews that circulate in some Muslim countries

No, its nothing like that. Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to the most vilejudeophobia. Only a man void of logic, reason and a moral compass couldconceive of such a statement.Islam, OTOH,  has declared war on the West and has carried out over 10,000 Islamic attacks since 9/11/01. The blood libel, holocaust denying and oppression of Jews in Muslim countries is nothing like it, let alone the equivalent. That’s not a comparison. It’s a leftist lie and and an out for any culpability by the terrible Muslim treatment of the Jews. The Jews have not waged war on the West or on anyone or any nation. The Jews half hearted attempts at self defense are deliberately small so as not to be accused of false crimes (al dura!) humanitarian crises (lights off Gaza!) so crushing is world condemnation of Israels right to defend herself.    We are asking legitimate questions of a man with a Muslim background (who is decidedly dishonest about it) and whose foreign policy advisers, kitchen cabinet and wife are patently anti-American. These things matter!

They are less aswipe at one candidate than a calumny against an entire religion. Theyunderscore that for many bigoted Americans in the 21st century, calling someonea Muslim is still a slur. 

Muslim is not a slur. Muslims will have to take sides in this war. Any Muslim that is with us, is not with the Islamists and we pray it is the ‘silent’ majority that everyone presupposes they are. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, ….. these Muslims are warriors and are critical in the battle against pious Islam.

There is a parallel with presidential campaigns in the 19th and early 20thcenturies, when one of the most common ways to attack a candidate was to suggestthat he was partly black, or at least favored racial intermarriage. For example,the Federalists charged that Thomas Jefferson was ‘the son of a half-breedIndian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.’ And the word ‘miscegenation’was coined in 1863 and 1864 in charges that Abraham Lincoln secretly plotted forblacks to marry whites, especially Irish-Americans. 

Kristof is being dishonest here. Obama Hussein was born a Muslim and raised a Muslim in a Muslim country until …… We know he has been in  the very anti-semetic, anti-American  Rev Jeremiah Wrights congregation for 20 years so Obamas first 27  years is anyones guess. We do not know if he was baptized as there is no record of his baptism. None. If his campaign would release that info, that would be great. Is he an apostate?Did he leave Islam? How?

As late as the 1920 presidential campaign, a quarter-million letters weresent to voters accusing Warren Harding of being descended from a ‘West IndianNegro. … May God save America from international shame and domestic ruin.’In looking back at that history, you wish that a candidate had responded notonly with, ‘No, I don’t have any black ancestor,’ but also with, ‘So what if Idid?’Likewise, with countless people today spreading scurrilous rumors that Mr.Obama is a Muslim, the most appropriate response is a denial followed by: And so what if he were? 

If he were we would want to know were he stood. Still do. Islam is a political ideology and there is no separation between mosque and state. So we’d like to know. We’d like to know when he says he will convene a Muslim summit to address their grievances (as President) what exactly does he mean. Regarding Israel, concerning sharia, oppression of free thought, what exactly? More suppression of free speech?

Granted, that’s not politically realistic as a comeback. A 2007 Gallup pollfound that 94 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black candidatefor president and 88 percent for a woman. In contrast, a Los Angeles Times pollin 2006 found that only 34 percent of respondents said they could vote for aMuslim for president. 

C’mon Krsitof, it’s not about colour – you are showing your age. That is so …. sixties. It’s about the declaration of war on the West by Islam.

Even if a prejudice is directed to a matter of choice, like religion or longhair, it’s still prejudice. It’s possible to believe that Catholics have everyright to be president while opposing a particular Catholic candidate who wouldban contraception; likewise, it’s possible to believe that Muslims have everyright to hold office without necessarily embracing the candidacy of particularMuslims who advocate enveloping all women in burkas. 

There’s a difference. One is a religion and one is a religious political ideology advancing and swallowing up Western societies, countries, continents.

To his credit, Mr. Obama has spoken respectfully of Islam (he told me lastyear, on the record, that the Muslim call to prayer is ‘one of the prettiestsounds on earth at sunset’). If he were to go further — ‘and so what if I wereMuslim?’ — many Americans would see that as confirmation that he is a Sunniterrorist agent of Al Qaeda who is part of a 9/11 backup plan: If you can’treach the White House with a hijacked plane, then storm the Oval Office throughthe ballot box. 

Could a German have said that from 1938-1945? Should they have?

This is a case where Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain should take theinitiative and denounce the fear-mongering about Mr. Obama as hate speech. Thewink-wink references to ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ and lies about his going to amadrassa are the religious equivalent of racial slurs, and Mr. McCain and Mrs.Clinton should denounce them in the strongest terms. This is their chance toshow leadership. 

Let Hillary do it. Let McCain do no such thing. I love this —  the Times Leftards in chief  telling the Republican candidate to submit to the Dhimmicrat candidate. Now thats (frank)rich.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television interview a week ago whether Mr.Obama is a Muslim, she denied it firmly — but then added, most unfortunately,‘as far as I know.’ To his credit, Mr. McCain scolded a radio host whorepeatedly referred to ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ and later called him a Manchuriancandidate. 

She has a point. I have called him the Manchurian candidate because of his domestic ties (Farrakhan),  international allegiances – (Odinga) and his promise to meet with dictators and despots of terror states (Iran) responsible for the murder of thousands American soldiers.

Martin Luther wasn’t a model of tolerance but even he took the position that,‘I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.’ In thispresidential campaign, we should at least aspire to be as open-minded as16th-century Germans. 

I’d rather be ruled by anyone that understands the enemy we face than a tool of the jihad. 

“(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Israel, Obama | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Cleveland Library Postpones CAIR’s Anti-Israel Propaganda Tripe

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

I wish they would cancel this instead of just postponing.

Cleveland Library Postpones CAIR’s Anti-Israel Propaganda Tripe: “


The Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library has postponed a three-part series on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid concerns from Jewish residents that the program would be biased against Israel.

The program was to open March 12 with the showing of ‘Searching for Peace in the Middle East,’ a 30-minute documentary sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation for Middle East Peace. The organization’s website describes the film as a ‘vivid, compassionate portrayal’ of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The event was to be presented locally by Cleveland Peace Action and co-facilitated by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

According to the library bulletin, the film was to be followed by a ‘structured public discussion’ facilitated by representatives of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Arab communities. The library’s board postponed the program after recognizing the paucity of pro-Israel representatives among the facilitators, says library director Steve Wood.

‘The decision (the board) made was the right one,’ he adds.

Cleveland Heights resident Fred Taub calls the ‘Searching for Peace’ documentary ‘blatantly biased’ against the Jewish state. For example, it harshly criticizes Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and suggests a ‘moral equivalency’ between Palestinian and Israeli violence.

David Berenson, a Jewish board member of Cleveland Peace Action, is ‘disappointed’ that the program has been postponed. He feels the documentary is balanced compared with more provocative films that are weighted toward either side of this conflict. Berenson notes his organization was not only working on adding a pro-Israeli member of the Jewish community to the discussion before March 12, it was also willing to replace the event’s CAIR representative; that group’s involvement was a particular sore point to Taub and other Jewish protestors, who claim CAIR has an anti-Israeli bias.

Taub, who runs frumcleveland.com, a website that is geared to Cleveland’s Orthodox Jewish community, sent letters decrying the program to city council, the school board, and library board members. He believes pressure from the local community against the library board, particularly in light of the library tax levy on this week’s primary ballot, ultimately submarined the scheduled program.

‘The library should not be used for a political agenda,’ Taub says.

Thoughts of this week’s levy quickened the pace of the board’s decision, Wood admits. However, the library director says the film and subsequent discussion session could be rescheduled. A library committee consisting of, among others, Cleveland Peace Action officials and members of the Cleveland Jewish community will be formed to ‘develop the content (of the program) and select knowledgeable representatives from all sides of the debate.’

Meanwhile, Cleveland Peace Action officials have requested that the library go ahead with the final two events of the Israel-Palestinian discussion series in April and May. The group has invited CH-UH city, school and library officials to review the remaining program points, notes Berenson.

Discussing serious issues ‘is the responsibility of the public library,’ contends Wood. ‘The library is not the place for censorship.’


(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

FBI boosts training in Islamic sensitivity

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

The FBI is going in the wrong direction on this. They are getting trained by Un-indited co-conspirtors of funders of terrorist. I hope they are not taking this training seriously. Why are they letting our enemy train them eludes me.

FBI boosts training in Islamic 'sensitivity': “© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The FBI believes its agents still aren’t sensitive enough to Muslims and their culture, so the bureau has extended by ‘a few weeks’ its Islamic cultural ‘enrichment’ training program, WND has learned.

During a recent outreach event at a Washington-area mosque, FBI officials also reassured a large turnout of concerned Muslims that the bureau is not profiling Arabs and Muslims for terrorism, and has made investigating alleged ‘hate crimes’ against them and other minorities ‘the second-highest priority in the criminal division of the FBI.’ [emphasis added]. Among the officials who attended the Feb. 8 ‘town hall meeting’ at the large ADAMS Center mosque were Timothy Healy, deputy assistant director for FBI intelligence, and Dave Bennett, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office.

The officials said terrorism is ‘not a new phenomenon’ limited to Muslims, and they cited abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolph as an example of a Christian terrorist.

While they said they are concerned about the threat from ‘homegrown terror’ perpetuated by second-generation Muslim immigrants, the officials assured the Muslim audience they are no more concerned about such homegrown attacks than they are ‘about bank robberies,’ and are not targeting the Muslim community for special surveillance.

One official offered that FBI headquarters has extended the bureau’s Arabic curriculum, which includes Muslim culture, by ‘a few weeks’ to expose agents to Islam and cultivate a better understanding of the faith.

‘We all need to learn and understand each other,’ he said, adding that the Muslim sensitivity program is part of basic training for agents.

‘One of the things that the FBI believes in is diversity,’ he said. ‘Diversity is important.’

To that end, he says the bureau is ‘under a hiring push this year’ and is heavily recruiting Muslim agents. The FBI wants to hire 900 FBI agents and 2,000 professional support staff, including Arabic translators, by Sept. 30. [emphasis added and note: why does the FBI routinely reject Christians and Jews who are fluent in Arabic who apply to be translators?]

‘One of the things that we are critically seeking are special agents and support staff who are Arabic speakers,’ he announced to the audience at the ADAMS mosque, which was founded and funded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.

‘We also need folks who, candidly, are familiar with Islam,’ the official said. ‘We’re learning, many of us. And I’ve had many conversations with Muslims, and I’ve learned quite a bit. I’m a Roman Catholic, and there are so many similarities I have learned between Islam and Christianity that was a surprise to me.’ [emphasis added].

ADAMS Center is not the only Muslim Brotherhood-tied organization where the FBI has recruited agents. In September, it also set up a recruitment booth at the annual Islamic Society of North America convention. Just four months earlier, federal prosecutors named ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror fundraising case, and listed it as a member of the U.S. branch of the radical Brotherhood.

What’s more, the agency is advertising for agents in ISNA’s magazine ‘Islamic Horizons,’ as well as on the website of the Saudi-backed Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which has supported Hamas and other known terrorists.

Last November, Lebanese former FBI agent Nada Prouty was arrested and pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a Hezbollah espionage investigation.

As WND first reported, the FBI summarily rejected some 90 Jewish Arabic speakers who after 9/11 applied to become translators and language specialists at the FBI’s New York field office.

As WND also first reported in 2003, national Arab-American and Muslim leaders have made presentations at an FBI training course on civil rights at the Washington offices of the FBI, and at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va., as part of ‘Enrichment Training Sessions’ for new special agents there.

In addition, the imam of a large Manhattan mosque has lectured veteran counterterrorism investigators at the FBI’s New York field office about misinterpretation of the meaning of jihad in the Quran, the Muslim holy book.

The sensitivity training program, denounced by some active and former agents, was mandated after the 9/11 attacks by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

FBI headquarters defends the program as a way to reach out to the Muslim community in America.

‘I hate the word ‘sensitivity’ training,’ said FBI spokesman Ed Cogswell. ‘I would call it an awareness training relative to cultural issues.’

Mueller has met several times with Arab and Muslim groups since 9/11. He even agreed to be the keynote speaker at the American Muslim Council conference in Washington – a move that drew fire from AMC critics, who note the group has sung the praises of Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and was headed by al-Qaida fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi, now serving time in federal prison on terror charges.

‘Mueller should lead the FBI in this war, and leave the sensitivity sessions to the human resources department or CNN,’ complained retired FBI special agent Don Lavey, who served 20 years in the bureau’s counterterrorism unit.

‘Let’s just hope the director is leading the charge in this war against terrorism with an equal amount of zeal that he shows for cultural sensitivities,’ added Lavey, who claims Mueller is so politically correct he refuses to use ‘Islamic’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence.

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Hezbollah Completes War Preparation

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

Thank you UN for preventing the terrorist groups build up.


Hezbollah Completes War Preparation: “



Intelligence assessment says Lebanese Shiite organization has completed its military, logistic preparations for resumed confrontation with IDF

The Hizbullah organization has completed its military and logistic preparations for a confrontation with Israel, a senior defense official told Ynet on Monday evening, based on recent intelligence assessments.

Hizbullah’s preparations reinforce the intelligence estimate that a conflict in northern Israel is closer than a wide-scale conflict in the Gaza Strip. This may be one of the reasons why the IDF is not rushing into a comprehensive operation in Gaza.

Senior defense establishment officials, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak, admitted several months ago that in terms of Hizbullah’s missile arsenal, the group has closed the gaps created after the Second Lebanon War.

The annual intelligence review, presented to cabinet ministers Sunday by officials from the Shin Bet internal security service, Miltary Intelligence and the Mossad, said that the likelihood for a wide-scale Hamas attack in 2008 was slim.

However, the likelihood that Hizbullah will resume its violent acts against Israel is higher than the likelihood for an escalation on other fronts. An escalation on one front may lead to a similar situation on additional fronts.

Hizbullah monitoring IDF’s movements
Hizbullah fighters are closely monitoring the IDF’s movements on the northern border, and have even come up with dozens of scenarios for the moment Israel acts against the organization.

According to the defense establishment, Hizbullah’s plans focus both on the activity in southern Lebanon and in the Bekaa Valley.

Another estimate is that Hizbullah has decided to carry out a terror attack in response to the assassination of the group’s senior official Imad Mugniyah in Damascus. Although there is no evidence that Israel was involved in the killing, the organization will seek to respond at the first opportunity it gets.

These estimates illustrate the risk in an escalation on the northern front this year, as expressed in the intelligence briefing presented to the cabinet ministers on Sunday. The IDF is preparing for such a possibility, holding a large number of exercises both among soldiers in compulsory service and among reserve forces.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday that ‘the intelligence assessment presidents a wide picture of threats on Israel’s security, from Jerusalem to Iran. We must look at reality as it is, without any illusions, and prepare for the real threats we are facing.’

Barak spoke during a visit to the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem, where eight students were shot to death by an Israeli Arab terrorist Thursday.

In south: Lull, with or without agreement
Barak said earlier Monday that the operational activity in Gaza would continue. According to Barak, ‘Whoever thinks that this is the end of the story and that there’s already a truce is wrong… We haven’t finished anything and the important trials are still ahead.’

The minister noted that the defense establishment’s goal was to stop the rocket fire at Israel and the terror emanating from Gaza, while dramatically reducing weapon smuggling into the Strip.

A ceasefire can only be considered once these things materialize, he said.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni also addressed the issue Monday, saying that ‘We don’t believe in (arriving to) a situation whereby Hamas can choose when it attacks and when it doesn’t in order to strengthen itself.’

According to Livni, ‘in the Middle East, every hesitation is taken as weakness. The states in the region are testing the leadership in the international community.

She added that the problem of weapons smuggling from Egypt into the Gaza Strip cannot be neglected.

Despite the Israeli denials, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas confirmed the existence of a truce between Israel and Hamas. ‘There is an agreement in principle,’ he told reporters following a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah in Amman.

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

From Iran with Love: Students agreed to murder Israeli officials

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

This just deeply disgusts me. The current regime in Iran needs to fall.

From Iran with Love: Students agreed to murder Israeli officials: “

Surprisingly, Reuters calls it for what it is – a murder. Although it refers to the blood thirsty gathering calling for murder simply as a pro-Palestinian meeting, and to the photos of Israeli officials with crosshairs on their foreheads simply as pictures.

Also note the ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ in bold letters. The world famous Ahmadinejad quote which, as we have been repeatedly told, was ‘mistranslated by the Western press’. And here it is, in all it’s its glory, in English, written by the Iranians themselves.

A student stands in front of a banner with pictures of Israeli
commanders, Head of Aman (IDF) Amos Yadlin (L), Director
of Mossad Meir Dagan (C) and Defense Minister Ehud Barak
during a pro-Palestinian meeting at a cultural centre in Tehran
March 9, 2008. Students agreed on an one-million dollar
for the murder of the three Israeli commanders.
REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl (IRAN)

A cleric registers to sell his kidney to help raise reward money
during a pro-Palestinian meeting at a cultural centre in Tehran
March 9, 2008. Students agreed on an one-million dollar reward
for the murder of three Israeli commanders, Ehud Barak, Amos
Yadlin and Meir Dagan. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl (IRAN)

A student attends a pro-Palestinian meeting at a cultural centre
in Tehran March 9, 2008. Students agreed on a one-million dollar
reward for the murder of three Israeli commanders, Ehud Barak,
Amos Yadlin and Meir Dagan. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl (IRAN)

A student and a cleric register to sell a kidney each to help
raise reward money during a pro-Palestinian meeting at a
cultural centre in Tehran March 9, 2008. Students agreed
on a one-million dollar reward for the murder of three Israeli
commanders, Ehud Barak, Amos Yadlin and Meir Dagan.
REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl (IRAN)

A student arranges video CDs of Palestinian suicide bombers
during a meeting at a cultural centre in Tehran March 9, 2008.
Students agreed on a one-million dollar reward for the murder
of three Israeli commanders, Ehud Barak, Amos Yadlin and
Meir Dagan. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl (IRAN)

A student stands behind a podium as a video of Hezbollah’s
Leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah plays during a pro-Palestinian
meeting at a cultural centre in Tehran March 9, 2008. Students
agreed on a one-million dollar reward for the murder of three
Israeli commanders, Ehud Barak, Amos Yadlin and Meir Dagan.
(Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters)

AFP uses a softer approach by calling it an ‘execution’ of Israeli officials rather than a murder.

A woman walks past a poster featuring portraits of (L-R)
Israeli military intelligence chief General Amos Yedlin,
Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Defence Minister Ehud Barak
during an anti-Israeli ceremony in Tehran. Iranian hardline
students have offered rewards totalling a million dollars for
the ‘execution’ of the three Israeli military leaders.
(AFP/Atta Kenare)

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Shoes With “Allah” On Bottom Latest Cause For Global Jihad

Posted by avideditor on March 11, 2008

What the jihadis complain about is laughable. I don’t know any other group in any time in history spread so many death threats over commics and shoes.

Shoes With “Allah” On Bottom Latest Cause For Global Jihad: “


For crying out loud…you know what it is with these people? They are too easily insulted.

These people taint the gene pool, I swear…

ALGIERS, MARCH 10 – Over 170 pairs of sports shoes with the inscription Allah in Arabic were seized by the Algerian police after the reports of many people stunned by this product considered offensive for the Muslims.

The shoes, counterfeit Adidas made in China, have been found in many Algerian markets, in particular in Skikda (east), Algiers and Tizi Ouzou, daily Liberte reports.

A real controversy sparked off on many blogs used mainly by young Algerians. ‘What does it mean? That those who wear these shoes trample on Allah,’ somebody say, while others ask themselves who is behind the making of this product.

Some pairs of jeans with the inscription Allah in Arabic on one pocket are also under accusation.

‘Must we sit on Allah?’. ‘Do we know to what insults of this type to the Muslims lead?,’ Liberte underlines, reminding of the cartoons on the Prophet Muhammad and the anger of the Islamic world.


(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: